Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 4.djvu/225

rOUhBB V; 7ABKXB. 211 �man, bankrnpt, as the admînistrator of an estàte, had giveu a bond under the law of this state for the faitbful performance of his duties as such administrator. On the twenty-seventh day of April, 1876, a suit was brought in the state court upon the bond. tJnder the law of this state such a bond is given to the state, and the suit was instituted in its name. A ]udgnient was recovered in the suit, which seems to have been for the benefit of the defendant in this case, Andrew J. Par- ker, Eodman, who executed the bond, became a bankrupt by a petition filed on the sixth of June, 1876, and an assign- ment was made under the bankrupt law of his property to the assignee, which, of course, related back to the time the petition in bankruptcy was filed. Judgment was not re- covered in the suit on the bond against the bankrupt until after the petition in bankruptcy was filed, and the question in the case is whether the assignee is entitled to the property, or the parties interested in the bond of the administrator. It is claimed on the part of the assignee that the assignment eut off by relation, on the 6th of June, when the petition was filed, and before judgment on the administration bond was rendered, the lien which the judgment gave on the property of the bankrupt. The law of this state declares that in suits instituted by the state upon bonds given 'to the state, that the liens upon judgments shall relate back to the time of the institution of the suit; and the judgment which was rendered in the state court declared that in conformity with the law the lien should relate back to the twenty-seventh of April, 1876, when the suit was commenced. If the lien operated from that time upon the property, of course it eut ofif any claims which the assignee might have, because a petition in bankruptcy was not filed until aftet a suit on the bond was commenced. That is the controversy between the parties. �I think that I must hold, under the law, that the priority of right is on the part of the creditors under the adminis- ' trator's bond, and not on the part of the assignee. The bankrupt law was not intended to destroy any liens created by the state law. It is trùe that it waà quite within the bounds'of pôssibility that, although the stlit was commenced ����